Legal Opinion

McPhail v. Boston & Maine Railroad

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided July 2, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.

This is an action at common law to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of alleged negligence of the defendant. The declaration was originally in three counts; a fourth count later was added. At the close of the evidence the defendant filed a written motion for a directed verdict in its favor upon each count. The motion was allowed as to the third count, and denied as to *115the first, second and fourth counts, subject „to the defend- • ant’s exception. The defendant also excepted to the refusal of the trial judge to give certain instructions to the jury; some of those exceptions…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Holden v. Fitchburg RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
  2. Armburg v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  3. Spicer v. South Boston Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
  4. Jellow v. Fore River Ship Building Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  5. Coleman v. Mechanics' Iron Foundry Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Cozzo v. Atlantic Refining Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938
  2. Cronan v. ArmitageMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
  3. Dumas v. MeyerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
  4. Thacker v. KlotzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
  5. Godon v. McClureMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1947

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API